Use this checklist to record who owns the agent workflow, which tasks and information it covers, who reviews the results, and who can change or stop it. Keep it up to date during the pilot as users, sources, or responsibilities change.
Use one proposed workflow to assign responsibility
Imagine an internal facilities team asks: “Review this equipment replacement request against the approved policy and current asset record. Flag missing information and draft a follow-up question for review. Do not change the record or place an order.” The agent can read the request, policy, and asset record, then prepare the draft. A facilities reviewer decides what to do with it.
Before the pilot, the team assigns a facilities process owner, a reviewer, and an operator for exceptions. The source owners confirm that the replacement policy and asset record are current. The completed operating record for this illustrative setup is:
Equipment request review — pilot decision record
- Process owner: Facilities lead responsible for the request workflow and policy.
- Sources: Submitted request, approved replacement policy, and current asset record; each source has a named owner.
- Permitted output: Recommendation and follow-up question in draft form.
- Decision owner: Facilities reviewer approves the next step.
- Exception operator: Named person investigates missing sources, access failures, and conflicting records.
- Pause or retirement: The process owner can suspend the workflow and decide when it should be revised or withdrawn.
- Decision: Approve a draft-only pilot with the listed sources and review point.
This record separates routine operation from the human decision. It does not assume that a platform setting enforces each rule; confirm controls in the connected systems.
A responsible person stays at the center of the review cycle.
Review the operating questions
Scroll horizontally to see all columns.
| Area | Question for the team | Evidence or owner to record |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose and users | What exact task is supported, who may request it, and who is affected by its output? | Job statement, intended users, process owner, and any excluded cases. |
| Information | Which sources are approved, who maintains them, and what happens when they are missing or conflict? | Source list, data owner, freshness expectation, and exception route. |
| Actions and decisions | What may the agent read or prepare, what actions remain unavailable, and where must a person decide? | Read/write scope, reviewer, approval boundary, and stop condition. |
| Quality and release | Which cases must work, what failure blocks the pilot, and who accepts the evidence? | Test set, acceptance criteria, evaluation owner, and decision date. |
| Daily operation | Who sees exceptions, who responds to a failure, and who can pause the workflow? | Operator, response channel, available run records, and pause owner. |
| Change and retirement | Who approves changes to the job, sources, tools, or audience, and who can withdraw the workflow? | Change owner, affected checks, rollback or disable path, and retirement decision. |
Assign one accountable owner for the end-to-end job even when security, privacy, operations, and subject-matter reviewers contribute. Give each contributor a clear decision to make rather than treating “the team” as a single approver.
Keep the checklist distinct from a cost review
This checklist answers who is responsible, what evidence supports the workflow, and how the team operates or stops it. A separate cost review can define budgets, usage limits, and cost per completed task. Link those records, but do not use a cost limit as a substitute for a named operator or a quality decision.
For this example, the facilities owner could pause the pilot if the policy is unavailable or the asset record cannot be checked. The reviewer could reject a recommendation that lacks evidence. The team records each decision and revises the job before testing it again.
Revisit governance as the work changes
Review the record before expanding the user group, connecting a new source, enabling a new action, or changing the review point. Recheck it after an incident or repeated exception. If no owner can explain the current scope or take responsibility for the next step, pause expansion until that gap is resolved.
Use governance and cost controls for the separate operating-cost review, the security review checklist for security intake, and agent change management to assess material updates.